Comments on: Atheists, Secularists, Liberals, Darwinists

By: Hani Obaid

Hani Obaid — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:15:58 +0000

Sorry for the late comment.

I’m an atheist myself, and I happen to agree with Craig in that the poster negatively emphasizes Christians evangilism.

I also am not sure how Craig characterised Bam-bam as a militant in your face atheist and decided that atheist propoganda exceeds Christian evangelism even on the internet.

An old teacher of mine was trying to prove that in the west, women have become dominant, and that male power was a myth. One trick was to do a computerised search the on the largest public library in the country for
several words representing men and women. Inevitably the conclusion was that there was far more literature ever written about women and women’s issues.

Of course what he missed was that this does not mean people are more interested in women’s rights, but rather that it is women’s rights that are often lacking and requiring action. Yet the method has some merit, so I will apply it to test Craig’s claim.

Google Jesus - 104 million results
Google Atheist - 2.4 million result
A ratio of 43:1, that is 43 times more mentions of jesus than atheist.

So I’d say Craig was mistaken, at least 40 times mistaken. Moreover characterising anyone who disagrees with your religion and doesn’t keep it to themselves as a bigot is rediculous. What happened to exchange of ideas ? Who put it on mute ?

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:28:47 +0000

Bambam, your opinions about Christians are very ignorant. I suggest you keep them to yourself. But it’s your call. If you like to sound like somebody who plays an exan expert on issues he has no real knowledge of, it’s up to you. I won’t e interacting with you any further. I said what I have to say, and I could have a more enlightening conversation with my cat.

By: bambam

bambam — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:45:57 +0000

tololy whenver things start getting on you nerves because of my comments please tell me and i’ll stop, but so far i find this too amusing…

Craig you are my stereotype and you are proving that it requires little revision when speaking in the general sense.

You claim to be a liberal and secularist and regardless of micromanaging its stances, the ACLU did the most to further those 2 ideals and is worthy of admiration, but you as i expected see it as a socialist and leftist (translates to dispicable in your language).

moving on, chrsitians common message is love. practically i view all chrisitans in the same light, but christians don’t view other christians in that light (think of mormons, protestants,JW, eastern orthodox, evangelicals, catholic and all the hate they spew at each other and how they discredit all other denominations)

OK i’ll go with the flow of the old testemant is not part of christianity, so i guess its inclusion in the bible is a clerical error, so why do you follow the ten comandments ? I guess we should scratch that out of the church’s teaching according to your reasoning. I mentioned it since if you believe in evolution that would disable a big chunk of your belief, unless you go about twisting and mangling "god’s word"

I don’t need to confirm to any label to please your whims, and i don’t shove my belief in your face that is exactly what you are doing (actually not just yours but a whole bunch of beliefs, athiest muslim judeisim & christianity) but alas you are too oblivious to know the difference

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:11:39 +0000

bambam,

ok craig; I got a kick out of you saying you are all of those and still a christian (and it got kicked up another notch when u added libartarian)

But I am a secularits, a firm believer in the validity of evolution, and a libertarian.

And I’m a Christian.

Let me ask you, when you have an invalid and offensive stereotype of Christians, whose fault is it? Yours, or mine?

how
the christians view the ACLU, other moderate moderate christians
(united methodists comes to mind)

What does the ACLU have to do with anything? The ACLU is a front group for socialsist and leftists.

Your comment about how "Christians" view "moderate" Christians is mind boggling. Do you not consider Methodists to be Christian? Are you critcizing Methodists for how they view themselves? I don’t have anywhere to plug that in. Does not compute. You assume anyone who admits to being Christian is a right wing evangelical? And then you accuse Christains of being hypocritical towards Christians for viewing Christians poorl? Or something?

 the book of genesis ? 

The book of Genesis is in the Old Testament. That’s Judaism. Christianity is in the New Testament.

By the way, Muslims also believe in the book of Genesis, do they not?

Oh, wait, this is the part where you tell me it’s part of Judaism. Right? :P

so … can you
see what i see as hypocritical ? 

Nope. What I see, is you slinging a bunhc of offensive stereotypes.

think not. when you drive your belief
in the public sphere you better expect the same from others.

No idea what this means. But this topic was about Christians, and as far as I can see I’m the only Christian commenting. So, why are you shoving YOUR beliefs and your religious bigotry on me?

For
the record am a muslim (my ID card says so:P) from the middle east …
now how accurate does the label fit i would think it fits me slightly
better than a western athiest dontcha think :) 

So, you aren’t an atheist? But everything you know about Christians, comes from Western Atheists?

Why don’t you just come out of the closet and admit to being a Muslim who has a very low opinion of Christians? Is that too much work for you?

By: bambam

bambam — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:51:03 +0000

hey tololy thanks for sharing, and the last line was mint ! " I do hope that this clears my stand on
Christianity, and if it doesn’t let it be known that I think the same of all
religions; that they are systems created by visionary men and built to control society in the hopes of
making it better and yet, all have made it a lot worse at one point or the
other." in the end religion is a matter that you have little choice in. You certainly confuse me when it comes to your religious views…

ok craig; I got a kick out of you saying you are all of those and still a christian (and it got kicked up another notch when u added libartarian)
how the christians view the ACLU, other moderate moderate christians (united methodists comes to mind) , the book of genesis ? so … can you see what i see as hypocritical ? think not. when you drive your belief in the public sphere you better expect the same from others.

For the record am a muslim (my ID card says so:P) from the middle east … now how accurate does the label fit i would think it fits me slightly better than a western athiest dontcha think :)

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:53:04 +0000

Hi Tololy, thanks for giving us your opinion.

atheists,
secularists, liberals, and Darwinists

That was my original point. All of those apply to me, except the "atheist" one. And yet I am a Christian. That poster is not how Christians see themselves. It’s how western atheists see Christians. It’s a parody. That’s why bambam gets such a kick out of it, and why I’m so offended by it. I’m suprised you don’t understand this, it seems pretty blatant to me. Perhaps you haven’t spent much time around western atheists. I grew up with them. In my view, there isn’t anybody more obnoxious than a militant atheist. They seem to believe it’s their mission in life to destroy other people’s faith. I don’t really care what people choose to believe, but I’d prefer it if they keep it to themselevs when they aren’t around like minded folks.

By: Tololy

Tololy — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:54:43 +0000

Let’s
all relax so we can better discuss this. I propose a cyber group hug.

Craig, I do not know how exactly you guessed that Bambam was atheist. I
wouldn’t have guessed it myself based on the comments posted here and I
generally try not to guess people’s beliefs because it is tricky business that
does not interest me much, at least most of the time.

I think the comments posted here were misunderstood as attacks when they were
merely an expression of opinion, and that goes for both Craig’s and Bambam’s input.
I read them time and again and I didn’t really feel any intentional hostility
in the beginning, until there was a misunderstanding and hostility started to
surface.

At any rate, I promised I would share my own opinion and I am mostly a woman of
my word, so here goes:

When I first saw the poster I was in a ticklish state of shock. "Do people
still use these ridiculous methods to advertise faith?" - that’s what I
asked myself. I personally believe that faith or the lack thereof is an
extremely personal matter that should not be commercialized and tossed around
and fought over like it is nowadays and like it has been for centuries in most
parts of the world.

I am of the opinion that holds that heaven and hell are subjective terms
conditioned by a person’s perception of these terms. Therefore, I think that
religious propaganda promising heaven or threatening with Eternal Fire is
outrageously childish and yet quite popular because it is easy to understand.
Exactly like McDonalds and Britney Spears and T-shirts. I do not buy it (but I do
buy McDonald’s and T-shirts, Spears not so much).

I think each one of us lives according to certain rules and limitations that
set that person in a cage; be these limitations religious rules or the lack of
these rules and semi-complete liberation. So I do not see how atheists,
secularists, liberals, and Darwinists are a threat to society and how they are
"unclean." They are no different than religious people and
creationists who also live according to their own set of rules. It depends how
you choose to look at the issue.

Personally, I would not care if a person worshipped a virus as long as they do
not interfere with my individuality and personal liberties. So I really am
against this whole "the other is bad, we are good" argument unless
there is this intrusion and invasion that I just mentioned. Anyone who tries to
cage me into subscribing to their system of faith will not be happy with the
results, and I don’t care if they’re god fearing or godless.

I
had wanted to crop that last sentence from the poster, the one about Jesus,
because I have nothing against the man or against Christianity and I did not
wish to be misunderstood. I published the poster only because it struck me as a
blunt, yet ludicrous, piece of religious psychological manipulation crossed
with some marketing and graphic design. I do hope that this clears my stand on
Christianity, and if it doesn’t let it be known that I think the same of all
religions; that they are systems created by visionary men and built to control society in the hopes of
making it better and yet, all have made it a lot worse at one point or the
other.

I hope this was a satisfying piece of my mind, feel free to leave your own.

By: Both Sides Now « Made in Jordan

Both Sides Now « Made in Jordan — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:53:05 +0000

[...] One of the most precious values that Jordan has taught me, is to cherish uncertainty and doubt as a birthright. I realize that the lyrics, or even Mitchell’s score has little to do with uncertainty, but that’s how I relate to the song. Uncertainty, doubt, skepticism and cynicism have all taught me to not only take whatever judgment or statement handed to me with a grain of salt, but to actually question issues and topics, that have long been dismissed on the shelf of taboo. I’m not saying that I want to convert our fairly conservative society into a bunch of existentialist enthusiasts. But I’d like to see people taking a moment before dropping any judgments, and look at both sides of everything. [...]

By: bambam

bambam — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:19:33 +0000

and thanks tololy, you promised us ur take on which is why i keep checking back here

By: bambam

bambam — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:17:12 +0000

man I was not even trying anything there, i didn’t even put my gloves on and i won’t since it is not my own space.
how the hell you find it offensive to christians is just as baffling as the way you consider me a bigot and an athiest.
go be jolly in your little bubble since i wouldn’t want to burst it for u

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:12:48 +0000

is it just because they demolish what you "believe" in ? thats it ?

ok if you consider my reply as offensive then yeah i would think that the athiest would have you by the throat. 

so
yes i think christians made that and they are proud of it and it is not
an attack of christians it is something they are proud off. 

Those comments are all attacks on Christians. Attacks on people based on their religious beliefs is called religious bigotry. It’s offensive. That’s why it is called "bigotry".

The last comment is in defense of a poster that was obviously meant to insult Christians, and bambam claims the poster that was meant to insult was actually made BY Christians. And that Christians should be proud of it.

How do you think I knew bambam was an athesit, Tololy?

By: Tololy

Tololy — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:45:29 +0000

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Bambam’s comments were offensive and I do not see how Craig thought Bambam harassed him right around comment no.8.

By: bambam

bambam — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:31:13 +0000

damn that was grammatically mangled …. crap

By: bambam

bambam — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:29:34 +0000

ok if you consider my reply as offensive then yeah i would think that the athiest would have you by the throat. remember that you have the choice to turn the channel, i certainly do.
seriously now i try to be realistic both do it, but save for the last couple of years when dawkins and ilk started the only nuts on tv where telivangelists of the highest turd quality and their overzealous followers certainly spammed the internet enough already, but since its not a thorn in your eye you don’t notice so you are being bias thats all. and i didn’t promote anything and thats actually how i started "ere are alot of reason i can’t take that poster seriously or think about writing a deep refute based on what i think"
proof in point you assumed that am an athiest and took it as a starting point for an attack although i don’t think i gave any justification to act that way, so that leaves your zealot. so you simply proved my point that christian and religious zealots are the quickest to jump to the defence.

Eh… as for opinions they are mine and when asked to give my opinion i will freely do so based on my own conviction and in this case i did, so honestly trying to shut me up at this point is kinda pointless.

As for my opinion regarding your Q, i really don’t think that they played some reverse psychology trick here, it is far more easier and effective to take the direct route. so yes i think christians made that and they are proud of it and it is not an attack of christians it is something they are proud off.
ENJOY!

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:12:01 +0000

By the way, bambam, do you admit it’s a shameless propaganda pice put out by the western left to attack Christians?

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:10:34 +0000

I see atheists all over the American news, all over the internet, all over the American media. Why on earth would they need to come to my door, bambam? Look at you harassing me here. Did you have to come to my door to do it?

How often have you seen Evangelicals or other crazy religious types on the blogs trying to trash other people’s beliefs? I bet if you did an honest evaluation, you’d have to admit the number of times you’ve promoted your atheism exceeds ALL the times in TOTAL that you’ve seena Christian on the internet promoting Christianity. Is that not so?

Why don’t you keep your opinions about religion to yourself? Is it that hard to do?

By: bambam

bambam — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:40:43 +0000

ok craig so i take it you have athiest knocking at your door on sunday morning and stopping u in public places asking you to "not" meet their friend ??
while refering to JW and ilk you gave and example but when it came to athiests you just said they are "in-your-face" how ? is it just because they demolish what you "believe" in ? thats it ?

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:07:16 +0000

I think that’s a leftist propaganda piece.

I am a secularist. I am a Darwinist. I am a "liberal" in the classic sense (not in the way leftists use the word, though! which is why I call myself a Libertarian)

I am also a Christian.

The poster is a deliberate lie. A deliberate misrepresentation of who and what Christians are, and what they believe.

I don’t much care for atheists. But as long as they don’t attack my beliefs, I’m all for "live and let live". Unfortunately, atheists are pretty aggressive and pretty obnoxious, as this poster demonstrates.

Why can’t people keep their spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves? Or at least share them in an open-minded fashion? That’s my question. I get annoyed as hell when Jehovah’s Witnesses or Evenagelical Christians show up at my door harassing me to subsribe to their version of "the word", but I’ve never been assailed the way I have been by in-your-face atheists.

By: bambam

bambam — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:14:34 +0000

ok back to comment on it, there are alot of reason i can’t take that poster seriously or think about writing a deep refute based on what i think (which litters my blog ever once in a while and like 5 minutes before i posted a reply i had a post about that !) so here are the reasons (beside the fact that its a hacked poster):

1. why are liberals et al portrayed as a female while the religious christians are portrayed as military and navy males, is it that they are protecting us from something ? are liberals et al more sexually inclined what is it ? (why am asking more questions just because the answer depends on the person reading, so my answer will be confining )

2. I fail to see the common thread between athiesim(lack of belief in a dogma so no set of rules to follow really), secularist (seperation of religion and governance without any restriction regarding personal belief), liberals ( giving more rights to minorities and under represented sects of the society again with no restriction of personal belief. maybe the only one that can be depicted as a female since thats one of the main groups they fight for) & darwinism (a scientific term that is used to describe evolution and natural selection and to diffrentiate it from modern theories of evolution that has no dogmatic implication except for those that feel that it undermines their religion & faith. this term scientifically is not even followed any more in its original form which the word depicts ) . essentially the only thing in common is that they promote individuality and loosens the church control over the populace which is the demise of organized religion.

3. I thought the claim that the "belief" in a religion is supposed to kill the doubt and skeptisim so if you are fighting what u claim you cure doesn’t that undermine your position ? "have faith my son, for god will provide you the answer in due time" is a statement that is commonly uttered by every religious person in meaning if not literally.

4. ok assuming they assume those 4 groups don’t believe in christianty then its natural to assume they don’t believe in the christian’s heaven so the final statement holds no value and that indicates they are not interested in salvation for people in those groups. hence the only use for that statement is to instill fear of not going into heaven for the already faithful and make them fear anything that contains those tags. one last notable easter egg there is the use of jesus instead of christianity or god. christianity opens the door way to the old testament which makes it very difficult to defend the incestious noah and the rest of the carnage in it while the new testiment is much more benign although collectively it is christianity. As for God which is used among all ibrahimic religions, well to be honest jews use G-d since they are not allowed to say/write God, it doesn’t further their aim to getting more christians and hence more donations. which is what it essentially boils down to.

So usually if i see something like that i’ll chuckle a bit and move on, i do agree Peter the quality has truely degraded along the centuries atleast stained glass was artistically and aesthetically pleasing, while this is insulting to the mind and certainly not my definition of eye candy.

Sorry for the uber long reply.

By: Tololy

Tololy — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:11:35 +0000

I got the poster off a random forum somewhere during my cyber wanderings today. Didn’t know it was a hack but thanks Bambam for pointing that out. I thought they meant "clean" as in, you know, normal, appealing, God-fearing — that kind of stuff.

By: Peter S

Peter S — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:47:19 +0000

Religious propaganda has really declined over the centuries. In the Christian world, we once had stained glass and renaissance paintings to advertise the faith.

Recently, in my mailbox, I received a pamphlet from a Christian Sect assuring me that their beliefs were the true path to salvation. On the cover was a drawing of Jesus of Nazareth with suspiciously well-coiffed hair and a distinctly non-semitic appearance. I had no idea that men were using hair gell in the first century. :)

By: bambam

bambam — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:42:55 +0000

just stopped by, thats a hacked version of an add in the 40’s(i think) regarding STD’s. so i don’t see the relationship between clean and what’s added below that.
thats for the poster as for your reply that will follow shortly
– the original is here http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/VC/B/B/C/F/

By: Pheras Hilal

Pheras Hilal — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:46:32 +0000

Ha! Of course the religious and the zealous will oppose "doubt and skepticism" and hail both concepts as very dirty germs that we the devout need to cleanse themselves from. Simply because religions haven’t provided any space or room for the slightest degree of doubt. Everything is absolute and everybody is certain. There is no other opinion, there is just God’s saying, and God’s doing. What religions breed, is this very arrogant attitude to life: If you are a religious Muslim or Christian, then you, and only you, and your religion, and your religion, is right, and all else is false. Only you, as a religious person will get to go to heaven, and all else are sinners and will be sent straight away to hell.

I could argue and talk about this subject forever. But I strictly believe that doubt and skepticism are both enlightment, and are both certainly not a sin. The Prophet Muhammed, spent years pondering and thinking in a cave, and did not receive the teachings of God directly, and immediately began implementing the teachings of Islam. Which only means, that before subscribing to any set of beliefs, one must toss those ideas around in his/her head, before reaching a final decision.

Also, religions do not evolve with time. They fairly carry the same set of beliefs and teachings that stretch over a long time, while a thinker, cannot adapt to that. Because as a human being, our beliefs and thoughts are constantly changing and developing and progressing. I believe, that personal doctrines are very transient, and that’s the way it is supposed to be. I cannot say, "oh well, I believe in so and so," and never try to evolve those thoughts, or to at least develop them as I learn new things, or encounter new experiences. While religions do not have that degree of volatility. Khalas, they are carved in stone, and nobody can add any new knowledge to them.

Anyway, as I said, I could go on about this forever, so I might as well just stop here!